(SeaPRwire) –   By: Julian Holbrooke

The ink was barely dry on the June 17 interim peace deal when the first shots rang out. This wasn’t a breakdown of diplomacy. It was the predictable collapse of a transaction built on mutual suspicion. Washington and Tehran have exchanged strikes several times since Friday. The threat now is not just military escalation. It is the total unraveling of any tentative stability in the region.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) did not mince words on Sunday. They stated clearly that the “very nature” of the US is to break its promises and treaties. This is not mere rhetoric. It is a diagnostic assessment of decades of US foreign policy behavior in the Middle East. The IRGC cited renewed attacks on Iranian coastal infrastructure as proof. They argued that the aggressor’s intent was always to violate the spirit of any agreement signed.

The trigger for this latest flare-up was a complex dispute over the Strait of Hormuz. According to the US-Iranian Memorandum of Understanding, Iran was supposed to make arrangements for controlling passage. Tehran interpreted this as requiring permission for all vessels and the use of designated routes. Washington demanded unimpeded access and charged no fees. These are not minor semantic differences. They are fundamental contradictions in how sovereignty and freedom of navigation are defined.

When the US attacked Iranian facilities on Sunday morning, they used the pretext of the IRGC Navy’s confrontation with a rogue vessel. The IRGC responded with ballistic missiles and drones. They claimed to have destroyed eight military installations at the Ali Al-Salem base in Kuwait. They also targeted the Fifth Fleet naval headquarters in Bahrain. The warning was explicit. Any new attacks would invite a crushing response.

This violence comes at a terrible time for negotiations. Trust has already been eroded by previous dealings. Iranian officials noted that diplomacy with the US carries a heavy historical baggage. The February 28 war launched by the US and Israel during indirect talks on Iran’s nuclear program set a hostile tone. That context makes any current de-escalation incredibly fragile.

The regional picture is further complicated by Israeli strikes on Lebanon. This adds another layer of volatility to an already dangerous equation. The US and Iran offer differing interpretations of the interim deal. Without a mechanism to resolve these divergences, the agreement is likely to remain a paper shield against reality.

We must look at the core contradiction here. One side sees a treaty as a binding constraint on military action. The other sees it as a temporary pause in a perpetual conflict. The IRGC’s statement reflects a belief that US commitments are inherently unreliable. Washington’s actions, such as the pretextual strikes, reinforce that belief. This cycle of accusation and retaliation is self-perpetuating.

The stakes are higher than just bilateral relations. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for global energy supplies. Disruptions here affect markets worldwide. The threat to derail negotiations means that economic stability is also on the line. Investors and traders are watching closely. The uncertainty is driving risk premiums up across the board.

The path forward is not obvious. Diplomacy requires trust. Trust requires consistent behavior. Neither side has demonstrated consistency recently. The US insists on unrestricted access. Iran insists on controlled passage. Both positions are non-negotiable in the current climate. Until there is a shift in posture, the interim deal will continue to fray.

Geopolitical analysts often overlook the psychological dimension of these conflicts. The narrative of betrayal is powerful. It shapes decision-making in Tehran and Washington alike. Leaders act based on perceived intentions. If the US is seen as an aggressor by nature, then any move is viewed as hostile. This perception creates a feedback loop of escalation.

The destruction of military installations in Kuwait and Bahrain is a significant escalation. It moves the conflict beyond symbolic gestures. It brings the war closer to the home bases of US allies. This raises the question of alliance cohesion. Will partners like Kuwait and Bahrain support continued US presence? Or will they seek neutrality to avoid becoming targets?

The interim deal was meant to be a bridge. Instead, it has become a minefield. Every step forward risks triggering an explosion. The IRGC’s warning of a crushing response is a clear deterrent. But it is also a challenge. It dares the US to test the limits of Iranian resolve.

In the end, the failure of this deal is not an accident. It is a feature of the underlying relationship. Without addressing the root causes of mistrust, any future agreement will face the same fate. The region needs a new framework. One based on verified actions, not just signed documents. Until then, the strikes will continue. The promises will be broken. And the world will watch in alarm.

Author bio: Julian Holbrooke, an overseas international relations analyst who frequently contributes to major European daily newspapers, specializing in Middle Eastern geopolitics and diplomatic history.